<p>Close. ILR. But I cheated – I’m an alum who has worked among the health care policy debates in a past life.</p>
<p>I am so smart and I know every random trivia you ask me. You will fail because I will raise the mean by 20 points.</p>
<p>Most of the given responses -save a few- to this thread have not come close to correctly identifying the difference between knowledge and intelligence. The dichotomy between the two is manifested within one’s innate ability to easily obtain knowledge from someone else who has merely obtained said knowledge through diligent work. A proper relationship would be two different types of “A” students: John and Timmy. The first, John, could be at the front of the classroom, taking notes that he’ll go home to reanalyze, study in his book, and come back to the professor to answer questions. The second, Timmy, listens to lecture from the middle or back of class, maybe takes some notes, and that’s about it. They both take the final, and John gets a B+ and Timmy gets an A. Guess who is the “intelligent” one and who’s the “knowledgeable” one. </p>
<p>This is by no means indicating that intelligent people are slackers, but just to say that they don’t need to work hard to be a 4.0 student because they have the natural capability to intake information and understand concepts before everyone else. </p>
<p>However, I would like to take the initiative and actually return to dean5150’s original question (one more thing, really quick: intelligent people easily absorb information; thus, they are more likely to retain random facts). I have little first hand knowledge of the Cornell student body’s intelligence, but as I perused the campus over the last few days, I came to accept the fact that without a brilliant student body, Cornell could have never won countless international engineering competitions, produced numerous Nobel Laureates, or even maintained its status as one of the top universities in the world. But of course, there is one disclaimer I have been informed of: the different colleges have student bodies of differing intellectual caliber. Of course, this tidbit of information may send people off into “special snowflake” arguments about how some people are more “socially intelligent” while others are “academically intelligent.” That’s a load of BS and the aforementioned definition of intelligence does not support this argument because frankly, we are not all created equal - and your child is quite possibly as dumb as the next.</p>
<p>Since when is intelligence defined as “ability to obtain knowledge”? In your example, you cannot clearly guess who would be defined as intelligent and who would be defined as knowledgeable.</p>
<p>The first one analyzes and crystallizes the information, and comes up with questions, meaning he has synthesized his knowledge. But on a supposedly standardized exam, he does only satisfactorily.</p>
<p>The second one is able to retain information well, despite limited involvement. And on a test he is able to do well.</p>
<p>Which one IS the intelligent one, and which one is knowledgeable.
If you look at synthesis skills vs. memorizing skills, the first one is “intelligent” and the second one “knowledgeable”</p>
<p>If you look at grades (which is how you and most people define intelligence, wrongly), the first one is “knowledgeable” and the second one is “intelligent”</p>
<p>Your view of intelligence is only the popularized one, not necessarily an accurate one.</p>
<p>And No one is trying to say that we are created equal, quite the opposite, what some people are good at, others are lacking, and vice a versa. What you are completely ignoring, and in fact snubbing, are the other areas of intelligence.</p>
<p>Have you heard of Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences?</p>
<p>The different subsets of intelligence are defined as:
Bodily-kinesthetic
Interpersonal
Verbal-linguistic
Logical-mathematical
Naturalistic
Intrapersonal
Visual-spatial
Musical</p>
<p>Our society thinks of intelligence and only is really thinking of Verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical. Yet students who are extremely logical-mathematical tend to be lacking in interpersonal intelligence (the stereotypical engineer). Someone instead, who is extremely good at interpersonal relations might be lacking in society’s defined intelligences of visual-linguistic and logical-mathematical (a Hotelie for example). Who are you to decide which is more valued?</p>
<p>lol i was just going to bring up the argument of multiple intelligences ^^. Very nicely said.</p>
<p>chendrix: EXCELLENT post. That was really informative and interesting.
Are you a Psych/HD major?</p>
<p>yes i agree!! i found that synthesis problems use my brain =(</p>
<p>No, I am an engineer.</p>
<p>My mother is a professor of psychology though, so I guess that’s where I get it.</p>
<p>I understand that there may be theories of multiple intelligences, but in the end, an underlying trend - as in, intelligence as the basic ability to understand concepts and apply knowledge - can be found at the root of all seven listed intelligences. The purpose of my giving a single, generalized example that did apply to the societal schema of intelligence was to hopefully convey a simple concept through an understandable medium. The true definition it was supposed to convey has been glossed over in your analysis. With such a precise definition of intelligence, one may categorize the “most intelligent” people however they like. Some may focus upon individual categories or merely people who easily cross-over between Gardner’s categories because they have a brain capable of absorbing X concepts.</p>
<p>Chendrix, your final question, although I would like to say addresses your previous reference to societal stereotypes very well, relies upon the inherent assumption that I made my statement under your own definitions of intelligence. Anyways, my comment/judgment was, I shall admit, the result of my contempt for mothers and fathers who foster delusions of grandeur for their … I’m not sure how to word this without upsetting anybody… sub-par children. People are useful in their own ways, but at least in regards to an academic institution, certain areas of intelligence are to hold priority when assessing students. </p>
<p>I’m interested in your response.</p>
<p>I agree that at an educational institution it is the University’s job to teach things that usually fall under society’s intelligence criterion (logical-math, verbal-linguistic, and visual-spatial), that is because most majors rely heavily on those skill sets.</p>
<p>However, your student body doesn’t have to have only those intelligences.
The most interesting people are those who have multiple types of intelligences, and the most diverse group of students will represent all types. A 40% Math-logical, 30% Linguistic, 20% Interpersonal, 10% Bodily-kinesthetic is more likely to have an interesting personality and have interesting contributions than a 100% Math-logical. Yes, the school can accept and enroll only 100% math-logical or 100% verbal-linguistic students with 2300+, 4.0. But would that make for an interesting group of students with diverse interests and diverse perspectives? No.</p>
<p>So yes, the admissions committee must make sure that the students have enough intelligence in traditional types to succeed here. But they also take into account how well a student displays the other types of intelligence, and thus makes for a more interesting body.</p>
<p>And yes, I would still reject your definition that intelligence at its root is “basic ability to understand concepts and apply knowledge”</p>
<p>An interpersonal is good at connecting with people, leading, and communcation. I would argue that this doesn’t fit into “understanding concepts and applying knowledge” </p>
<p>An Intrapersonal is highly self-aware and introspective. I wouldn’t characterize that as “basic ability to understand concepts and apply knowledge”</p>
<p>A visual-spatial is good at building pictures and manipulating images. That doesn’t fit in either.</p>
<p>Monkeybrains -</p>
<p>As you emerge into adulthood, I suspect you will come to understand the flaws of your argument.</p>
<p>Knowing random facts is not an intrinsic trait of intelligence. I, for one, struggled greatly with classroom learning geared toward regurgitating information until I was able to choose classes that allowed to use my philosophical / creative intelligence. It was only then - after having gone through an academic system geared to a very different intelligence - that I realized how much academia had failed me and made me believe I was stupid. </p>
<p>You are stuck in correlating intelligence to grades / classroom success, and that is a horrifically dangerous approach. One of Cornell’s strengths is that it caters to many different intelligences. Only those who thrive in the conventional form of intelligence look down on those in other schools for being, what they perceive to be, less intelligent.</p>
<p>On a related note, don’t ever confuse knowledge for wisdom.</p>
<p>applejack- True dat.
To further support applejack’s point, I shall give two examples:
A friend of mine, who is extremely smart (USAMO qualifer) and works hard for his grades, gets much lower grades than the “salutatorian”, a ditzy blonde who can regurgitate facts very well but does not know where Europe is on the map or that the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. There is no way you can tell me that the ditzy blonde salutatorian is smarter than the math nerd who can comprehend math concepts that took me days to learn in a few hours.</p>
<p>I guess I may not have conveyed my perception of intelligence as clearly as I had hoped. How about applying the “basic ability to understand concepts and apply knowledge” to the few examples you gave that you thought did not fit (I’m looking at the “quantum of intelligence” per se… so I can see how you don’t agree because I’m looking at the extremely basic):</p>
<p>-Interpersonal: In order to connect with others, one must be able to understand someone else alongside his/her own abilities to communicate his/her own thoughts. My definition applies in that one’s understanding of another’s background (be it personal history, personality, etc.) allows him to efficiently communicate his own thoughts, which he must be able to understand and apply, himself. Leading not only connects to logical analysis of a situation, but to the understanding of past events and other people’s personalities, etc. in order to implement commands efficiently (here, called “interpersonal intelligence”). </p>
<p>-Intrapersonal: This would relate to interpersonal intelligence under the grounds that one’s understanding of his own emotional reactions, etc. to events and ability to apply said understanding to manipulate future events. This may lead to self awareness and introspection, which heavily rely upon one’s careful understanding of his own brain. Thus, the definition of “understanding concepts and applying knowledge” applies.</p>
<p>-Visual-Spatial: At the most basic level art, pictures, images, etc. and our perception of them are governed by man’s interpretation of visual stimuli. Thus, it can be inferred that patterns shall emerge upon what is perceived how, and one’s ability to understand such patterns and his ability to apply said knowledge to manipulate images is characterized as visual-spatial intelligence. </p>
<p>Applejack, you’ve misunderstood me. I have not been arguing from a specific viewpoint except my own (You falsely assumed that I supported the school system). Furthermore, I don’t understand where I have shown to be “stuck in correlating intelligence to grades / classroom success”. Please quote me if you think differently. But your last comment (there seems to be a trend with broad statements at the end of messages) is interesting in that wisdom hasn’t come up yet (unless I missed some older posts…). I must admit that I have thrown around the word “knowledge” quite flippantly, but hopefully the underlying concept is tangible…</p>
<p>Vinnyli, you’ve also taken my arguments the wrong way. But on the related note of critiquing the school system, grades destroy students’ intrinsic motivation to learn material on their own accord. I see where you are coming from with your anecdotes, but I never implied that someone such as your “ditzy blonde” were more intelligent or useful than your friend. Uh oh, I opened a can of worms by using “useful”… But I could probably play devil’s advocate (I am right now) and bring some of Chendrix’s arguments against your assumption that the “ditzy blonde” was not intelligent. But alas, I won’t.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this is addressed in Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, but I would argue that originality plays a key factor in intelligence. This definitely relates to the common outcry against rote memorization, but I believe Gardner’s Theory is limited in that originality isn’t explicitly cited as related to intelligence. Anywho, let’s see how this plays out.</p>
<p><a href=“You%20falsely%20assumed%20that%20I%20supported%20the%20school%20system”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My friend, the institutional academic system works for you so you, perhaps subconsciously, work for it. You are very much in support of the school system and all the little fishies it gives to those who do flips and jumps through the hoop. </p>
<p>In your own words:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. In fact, many extremely intelligent people do need to work hard to be 4.0 students in a system that rewards regurgitation rather than intelligence. How many geniuses were poor students throughout history? How many middling minds were elevated to high levels simply because they could serve the system. I’ve known quite a few.</p>
<p><a href=“one%20more%20thing,%20really%20quick:%20intelligent%20people%20easily%20absorb%20information;%20thus,%20they%20are%20more%20likely%20to%20retain%20random%20facts”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Certain types of intelligences do that - usually the less creative types suited for being doctors or lawyers. Retaining random facts has nothing to do with most types of intelligences. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement is just extremely condescending, insulting, and, quite frankly, ignorant.</p>
<p>It’s kind of like how most white people don’t see racism against black people. You just simply don’t see what you’re arguing against because you’ve never experienced it. Your mind is served well by the existing structures of academia. You should consider yourself lucky, but don’t go around calling other people dumb who very well might be far more intelligent than you in many ways.</p>
<p><em>blitzes through the last few pages</em></p>
<p>Or we could simply say “In general, yes, as is the case at most selective schools”.
done-zo.</p>
<p>Given the college acceptance outcome of my D’s high school, I think Cornell put more emphasis on GPA than on SAT. Students with high GPA/rank (top 2%) but average SAT got admitted; but students with significant higher SAT/outstanding ECs but lower GPA/rank not. URM has its own criteria.</p>
<p>^ I think most ivies do as well (emph. on GPA versus test scores)</p>
<p>One of the more important perspectives regarding intelligence is that there is no test which can quantify it. In the words of Daniel T (one of the smartest men alive) " I hesitate to believe that any system could really reflect the complexity and uniqueness of one person’s mind or meaningfully describe the nature of his or her potential."
Thus it seems kind of silly to say that “because student A does X faster or better, than he/she is smarter than student B.” There are, simply, too many factors which play pivotal roles in the makeup of our intelligence(s): from a more aesthetic perspective, one can think of intelligence as a colorful collage of different skills and functions within our brain.</p>
<p>Additionally, neuroplasticity anyone? It seems to be all the rave right now with neuroscientists and authors alike and appropriate to this discussion. This theory states that through dilligent work in different activities, one can increase their intelligence; thus nothing is concrete. As to intelligence being innate, do you mean to say that it is the result of genetics? Many studies have shown–along with common sense, lol–that our problem solving skills arise from a combination of genetics with the environment. However, now we are getting off into “nature vs nurture” and so i will leave it at that; i’m not quite sure if it’s possible to say one plays a bigger role than the other.
I like the discussion… very interesting.</p>
<p>Most…But you’ll find the occasional student from Ithaca (High School) who got in because mommy or daddy (or both!) work there and they didn’t totally eff up in high school.</p>
<p>Let’s not have a psychology discussion? :P</p>
<p>I for one and extremely interested in the answer: are most Cornellians smart? and by this I mean the “popular” definition of intelligence - where they don’t have to work hard to understand the concepts…</p>